Re: Tilted Scans (was: filmscanners: Vuescan feedback )

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Collin Ong wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Arthur Entlich wrote:
> 
>> Collin Ong wrote:
>> 
>>> I believe that the main culprit is the totally nonsensical scan order, as
>>> you pointed out.  The SDII scans frames from out to in, which maximizes
>>> the time the frames spend exposed to the environment.  Combine that with
>>> the fact that the scan direction for each frame is in the *OPPOSITE*
>>> direction, which means that after scanning, the *slow* transport has to
>>> move back across the frame to get to the next one.  I have no idea what
>> 
> 
>> Could it be that they were thinking of people who want to scan just one 
>> slide, and would otherwise have to wait until the whole carrier was 
>> pulled in before scanning, and then having to wait for the whole carrier 
>> to eject?  Just a thought.
> 
> 
> That's a good thought, and it made me consider those people for a while,
> but I concluded:
> 
> First off, why add the expense of a film transport for batch scanning,
> then make it unbearably painful to use it for batch scanning?
> 
> Second, if somebody is scanning only one frame in a strip, then its
> equally likely that the frame will be closer to one end or the other.
> Either way, there will be some times when they'll have to wait for the
> transport, and it'll average out.
> 
> But batch scanners suffer every time.
> 

Wouldn't the person needing only one frame of a film strip just flip the 
neg around in the carrier (if the carrier can only go in one way) so 
that the frame was closest to the front end?  And what about for slides, 
where you can place the image anywhere you wish in the carrier?

Seems to me this scanner is not best for batch scanning.  Perhaps they 
could have designed it, or through software, had it switchable to do 
either direction, but maybe the motor become less accurate that way.

I'd ask Minolta...

Art